Table 5

Number (%) of quality assessment criteria reported by each pilot cluster randomised trial in this review

StudyOverall n (%)*Title and abstract and introduction n (%)Methods n (%)Results n (%)Discussion and other information n (%)
Drahota
[A7]
50 (70)6 (86)17 (59)18 (78)9 (75)
Pai
[A12]
48 (69)5 (71)17 (61)18 (78)8 (67)
Mytton
[A17]
50 (68)4 (57)21 (66)13 (57)12 (100)
Thomas
[A18]
46(67)5 (71)17 (59)15 (65)9 (90)
Teut
[A14]
49 (66)6 (86)20 (63)14 (61)9 (75)
Taylor
[A6]
47 (64)7 (100)16 (52)13 (57)11 (92)
Légaré
[A3]
42 (58)3 (43)18 (56)14 (61)7 (64)
Begh
[A1]
41 (56)5 (71)16 (52)11 (48)9 (75)
Jago
[A15]
39 (55)4 (57)11 (38)13 (57)11 (92)
Jones
[A10]
32 (52)7 (100)10 (33)6 (50)9 (75)
Moore
[A11]
37 (52)5 (71)13 (45)8 (35)11 (92)
Michie
[A16]
36 (51)3 (43)15 (52)8 (36)10 (83)
Jones
[A2]
37 (51)3 (43)15 (48)10 (45)9 (75)
Jago
[A5]
33 (46)4 (57)13 (45)10 (43)6 (50)
Gifford
[A9]
33 (45)6 (86)12 (39)8 (35)7 (58)
Reeves
[A13]
29 (41)6 (86)11 (38)7 (32)5 (42)
Frenn
[A8]
18 (26)1 (14)5 (17)7 (32)5 (42)
Hopkins
[A4]
16 (23)2 (29)4 (14)4 (18)6 (50)
  • *This is the overall number (percentage) of the quality assessment items in table 4 that are reported by each study. The other columns look at this within categories. Note that the denominator varies between studies because not all quality assessment items are relevant for all studies (see footnote of table 4) and not applicable for some items if a related item is not reported (see items 3b, 6b, 15, 26 in table 4).